AC624 Crash Halifax Airport

Carroll-Byrne et al v. Air Canada, NAV Canada et al

Nova Scotia Supreme Court File: Hfx No. 438657

Wagners and Camp Fiorante Matthews Mogerman, a law firm in Vancouver, British Columbia, and MacGillivray Injury and Insurance Law, a law firm in Halifax, Nova Scotia, are carrying a class action against Air Canada, NAV Canada, Transport Canada, the Halifax International Airport Authority and Airbus following the crash of Air Canada Flight 624 on March 29, 2015 on its landing approach at the Halifax Stanfield International Airport. The action was filed on April 28, 2015 in the Nova Scotia Supreme Court in Halifax.

The Airbus A320, which was en route from Toronto, carried 133 passengers and five crew members.

The class action seeks compensation for the harm caused to the passengers.

The class action was certified on consent on December 14, 2016.

Updates & Latest Developments

On July 4, 2019, the Honourable Justice Duncan of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia heard a motion to determine a limited, contested issue in this case. The Defendant Airbus SAS brought a motion for an Order to require the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board (TSB) to produce the audio data and any transcripts from the on-board Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) that was onboard Air Canada flight 624. The Plaintiffs and some other Defendant parties (HIAA and NAV Canada) joined with Airbus in seeking production of the CVR. There were also intervening parties – the Air Canada Pilots Association and the TSB – who argued that the court should not order production of the CVR.

The CVR is a flight recorder used to record the audio environment in the flight deck of an aircraft for the purpose of investigation of accidents and incidents. Typically, the CVR is not disclosable, unless a Court orders that it be disclosed in the interests of justice.

Following the hearing on July 4, 2019, the Judge provided an oral decision on September 4, 2019, with written reasons to follow, which were released November 20, 2019.

In sum, the Judge concluded that, under the circumstances of this case, the public interest in the administration of justice outweighs the importance of protecting the CVR. He determined that the contents of the CVR are relevant and reliable, and that this litigation is important and substantial both in personal, and in monetary, terms.

A copy of the written reasons are posted HERE.

The class action was certified on consent on December 14, 2016.

The parties are preparing for a common issues trial. The trial dates are soon to be scheduled.

error: Content is protected !!